First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Rainbow Crunchyroll Logo
4210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 6/27/15 , edited 6/27/15

DarkFrostX wrote:

Inappropriate for a corporation.

In my opinion.


100% agree.

If it was the confederate flag people would think twice.
33373 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 6/27/15 , edited 6/27/15
Crunchyroll has always been a bunch of liberals, plus their headquarters are in San Fransisco. So there isn't any surprise here.

I love rainbows, rainbows for everyone.



Taste the skittles


(political stance, centre)
9380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

maxgale wrote:


flamingboar wrote:

Its really cool that a company would stick its neck out to support this cause. Sure, a lot of companies are doing it right now, and thats cool too. Lets just all be happy that a group of people finally get to live like the rest of us .



Through trampling the guarantees of this country which keeps it from being a tyranny, sure.


But at least some are honest that it doesn't matter so long as trite sentimentalism wins the day.



"Muh feels" are the opiate of the masses.



Tyranny? What tyranny? Americans can now marry people of the same sex. We can do something that we couldn't before! We are more free now if anything.
7579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 6/27/15

MontyDono wrote:


DarkFrostX wrote:

Inappropriate for a corporation.

In my opinion.


100% agree.

If it was the confederate flag people would think twice.


I don't see the similarities.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

narfington wrote:


maxgale wrote:


flamingboar wrote:

Its really cool that a company would stick its neck out to support this cause. Sure, a lot of companies are doing it right now, and thats cool too. Lets just all be happy that a group of people finally get to live like the rest of us .



Through trampling the guarantees of this country which keeps it from being a tyranny, sure.


But at least some are honest that it doesn't matter so long as trite sentimentalism wins the day.



"Muh feels" are the opiate of the masses.



Tyranny? What tyranny? Americans can now marry people of the same sex. We can do something that we couldn't before! We are more free now if anything.


TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."
9380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

maxgale wrote:

TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."



Wait wait. I thought the particular case that brought this whole thing to the supreme court was that one of the states (Tennessee I think it was) wasn't recognizing a guy as the widower of his husband because they were married in another state and Tennessee didn't recognize same sex marriage. How does this involve the Justice Department?
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

narfington wrote:


maxgale wrote:

TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."



Wait wait. I thought the particular case that brought this whole thing to the supreme court was that one of the states (Tennessee I think it was) wasn't recognizing a guy as the widower of his husband because they were married in another state and Tennessee didn't recognize same sex marriage. How does this involve the Justice Department?


DoJ didn't enforce DOMA, leading to this.
9380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

maxgale wrote:


narfington wrote:


maxgale wrote:

TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."



Wait wait. I thought the particular case that brought this whole thing to the supreme court was that one of the states (Tennessee I think it was) wasn't recognizing a guy as the widower of his husband because they were married in another state and Tennessee didn't recognize same sex marriage. How does this involve the Justice Department?


DoJ didn't enforce DOMA, leading to this.


http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/letter-attorney-general-congress-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act

Well from what I got from this, it sounds like Holder simply refused to defend DOMA in court. Failure to enforce DOMA would have meant doling out federal benefits to same-sex couples that had married in states where it was legal.

21606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hell
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

anzn wrote:


DarkFrostX wrote:

Inappropriate for a corporation.

In my opinion.

Found a homophobe.

Texas84 wrote:

I support gay marriage but I come here to escape the real world. I don't want to see in-your-face politics from CR. The Twitter account has been unfollowed and I may have to reconsider my paid membership.

Found another one.


Look! found a jackass who apparently is incapable of basic reading comprehension.

68918 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
East Coast
Online
Posted 6/27/15
I would REALLY rather Crunchyroll not do this.
Posted 6/27/15 , edited 6/27/15

maxgale wrote:

TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."


I don't want to touch the same-sex marriage issue with a 39.5 foot pole, but this is what really intrigues me. It seems like the Supreme Court can practically do whatever the heck they want by making nation-impacting decisions despite being a small, non-elected group with members that serve life terms.

However, I personally don't want to talk about it with regard to an issue this contentious. It would just needlessly obscure the part of it that actually interests me.

I kind of wish there was a separate thread about this topic - but not now. Maybe in a month or so after all this has died down and talking about it doesn't seem reactionary.
Posted 6/27/15 , edited 6/27/15
If you're against gay marriage, have a problem with it, or seem to be disturbed BY A RAINBOW COLORED PICTURE, please jump off a cliff or come out of the closet yourself. And sure as hell dont talk to me. Ever.

People unsubscribing from CR because of this? Really guys? I noticed a trend too. Seemed like all dudes saying it was a problem. Heavy fat fellas. No girls. Covering up something? Just...




27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

seekerperson7 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

TL;DR summary:


Legal scenario occurred due to Department of Justice, and therefore executive branch, not carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duty.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in an ideologically based vote which ignores their mandated role, offers an opinion which supercedes their authority and transgresses the very protections put in place in the founding of this country to prevent this very scenario from occurring.

Alllll because "it feels right."


I don't want to touch the same-sex marriage issue with a 39.5 foot pole, but this is what really intrigues me. It seems like the Supreme Court can practically do whatever the heck they want by making nation-impacting decisions despite being a small, non-elected group with members that serve life terms.

However, I personally don't want to talk about it with regard to an issue this contentious. It would just needlessly obscure the part of it that actually interests me.

I kind of wish there was a separate thread about this topic - but not now. Maybe in a month or so after all this has died down and talking about it doesn't seem reactionary.


Exactly.

Yet those who handwave the details of how this came about seem to purposefully not inquire as to "Hey, what if people we disagree with use this as precedent to do what THEY desire?"

11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/27/15
The thing is, when one major company shows support for a cause, many follow suit to not appear to be against it. For better or for worse, this is the truth. The same thing with Wal-Mart and the confederate flag ban, every other major retailer had to do the same. I certainly am not against either action, but their are ramifications or speculations about a company if they seem disinterested in these things. My dad who is much more religious than I am made a very good point. He is very much against Gay marriage from a personal standpoint,but simply said "This country isn't based on religious law and therefore their is no validation to banning gay marriage".This Crunchyroll Logo doesn't bother me, but this is something that does.

http://news.yahoo.com/nintendo-allow-gay-marriage-latest-fire-emblem-game-084110895.html;_ylt=AwrBT.Sn7I5VgXMAfQ9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEya2R0YnEyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAzNDBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

In the latest version of Fire Emblem, gay marriage is an option...I wouldn't give a shit except the fact that the company only made it after having backlash when it wasn't in the last game. You pair off two characters mainly for one of them to have an offspring that you can use as a character.Tell me when its possible for a gay couple to produce an offspring??A simple game mechanic became a big political issue,not to mention the games are usually set in times with swords and castles....I know its a fantasy land,but still, gay marriage wasn't happening in times with kings and queens.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/27/15

Ejanss wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Huge weekend here too, Biggest Pride Celebration in North America possibly the world (we hosted World Pride Last year)


And, as I always like to joke during Pride weekend:
"Great, when do the other Six Deadly Sins get a celebration? I see plenty of Greed, Jealousy and Anger, when do we hit the Lust, Gluttony and Sloth parties? "

(Hey, somebody oughta call John Doe on this; tell me there wouldn't be market for the Gay Lust Parade.)



Visit us in Nevada, we call that Saturday night at the buffet line,


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.